Back
TISSERA et al. v. RAMASWAMY CHETTIAR
NLR35V382
1934 Present: Dalton and
Drieberg JJ.
TISSERA et al. v. RAMASWAMY CHETTIAR.
APPLICATION TO REVISE BILL or COSTS IN D. C. CHILAW, 8,880.
Costs-Taxation of costs in
appeal-Attendance of proctor on counsel- Attendance of proctor in Court of
Appeal-Fees for more than two counsel-Proportion of fee as between senior and
junior counsel.
In the taxation of a bill of costs incurred in the Supreme Court in appeal, the
charge allowed to a proctor for attending on counsel for advice on the case is
limited to one attendance. The charge allowed for attendance in the Court of
Appeal is similarly limited to one.
The mere fact that an argument has taken two days or more is no ground for
allowing more than one consultation with counsel to be charged. No charge is
allowed for written instructions given to counsel.
As a general rule, fees should not be allowed for more than two counsel, the
proportion of fee as between senior and junior counsel being one half.
APPLICATION
to revise the taxation by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of a bill of costs.
E. F. N. Gratiaen, for plaintiff.
S. W. Jayasuriya (with him Kottegoda), for defendants.
Cur. adv. vult.
July 9, 1934. DALTON J.-
These two applications have been made to revise the taxation by the Registrar of
this Court of the bill of the successful appellants (defendants in the action)
in the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff appeals against the allowance of certain
items by the taxing officer, the defendants appeal against certain items in the
bill which have been disallowed by him.
It appears that there were three
actions in the District Court, Nos. 8,811. 8,812, and 8,880. They were heard
together and seem to have taken some time to conclude, the record being a
voluminous one. Three appeals (S. C. Nos. 28, 29, and 30) followed therein to
this Court. The appeal in S. C. No. 28 (D. C. No. 8,811) was then heard, it
being agreed that the appeals in the other two cases should abide the result in
S. C. No. 28. In that appeal the District Judge's order was set aside, and the
case remitted to him, the appellants (defendants) being declared entitled to the
costs of the appeal. The hearing of the appeal took ten days, April 3. 4, 5, 7,
10, 11, and 12 and May 15, 16, and 17, 1933. The appellants then presented a
bill in respect of their costs in the appeal, amounting to the sum of Rs.
3,166.25. This bill the taxing officer allowed in the sum of Rs. 885.50,
disallowing items in the sum of Rs. 2.280.75 in all.
It will be convenient first to deal with the appeal of the plaintiff, except in
so far as both appeals refer to the same items in the bill. Plaintiff's appeal
applies to four heads of charges that have been allowed by the taxing officer.
The first head deals with attendances of proctor on counsel and attendances of
the proctor in Court. Five attendances on counsel are charged for prior to the
hearing of the appeal, and 18 on counsel after the appeal was listed for
hearing. These 23 attendances are charged at Rs. 10 each, amounting to Rs. 230.
In addition, 10 attendances of the proctor in Court are also charged at Rs. 10
each. The taxing officer allowed only one attendance on counsel, i.e., for
attendance prior to the listing of the appeal. He points out that the item in
the tariff, under which this charge comes, is as follows:-"Instructing advocate
to make or oppose any special motion, or for advice on appellants' or
respondent's case." There does not appear to have been any special motion, and
hence the charge comes under the latter part, for advice on appellants' case,
for which the tariff provides a single fee. One charge of Rs. 10 only was
allowed. The defendants appealed from this conclusion, urging that the 23
attendances should be allowed, but counsel's argument was based rather upon the
weight of the case than on the provisions of the tariff. He failed to show the
taxing officer was wrong in th
